- cross-posted to:
- usa@midwest.social
- cross-posted to:
- usa@midwest.social
A society is always about 3 days of hunger away from a violent revolution. Start your clocks.
You must log in or register to comment.
Republicans don’t give a fuck if they kill people by withholding healthcare, obviously they don’t give a fuck if people starve.
At some point the Democrats have got to realize this and start acting accordingly, but Democrats are still bending the knee: 13 Senate Democrats just voted to install a conservative judge in Alabama.
Republicans don’t give a fuck if they kill people by withholding healthcare, obviously they don’t give a fuck if people starve.
Maybe that’s why they love Israel so much?
What the fuck. I know Republicans despise poor people and think they can just magically pick themselves up by their own bootstraps, but… People still need to eat! We obviously have to! Hoping no one I know is hurt in the upcoming riots and crime.
In the meantime, please consider donating to food banks and nonprofit organizations, since apparently none of our tax dollars will go to helping those less fortunate…
People still need to eat! We obviously have to!
Eat the rich?
Mostly plastic, huffed farts, and inbred bitterness. Not healthy eatin’.
Fertilizer, however… There’s a plan.
I hear pigs can go through bone like butter.
IIRC, ya gotta prep by shavin’ the hair off and pullin’ the teeth out (for the sake of the piggies’ digestion). 16 pigs’ll go through 200lbs in ~8 minutes. That means that a single pig can consume 2lbs of uncooked flesh every 60secs.
Hence the expression, “as greedy as a pig”.
Best accidentally torrented movie I’ve seen!
I’ve never looked at a pig farm the same way since. 😅
I’ve never looked at pigs the same way! MFers are scary!
It’s not going to matter until the next rung up gets hungry.
Did somebody say Bell riots? I thought I heard Bell riots.
That was after they created the Sanctuary Districts in major cities, like San Francisco. We’re still a bit away from that. They’re leaving the homeless to roam.
Star Trek future here we come, huzzah!
Don’t forget we have to do the Eugenics Wars first as well…
As well as World War III killing a double digit percentage of the world population.
Yay the end is near!
Don’t forget the post-atomic horrors that follow.
But maybe I can live just long enough to meet porthos
YOU ARE OUT OF ORDER!
does a bump of government coke, dies
I’m sure Mark Twain will rescue me from those
That was last year. Check your calendar.
The eugenics wars happened in the 90’s. Something shifted the timeline around.
Temporal Cold War
So we’re in the Kelvin timeline? Ugh, well, okay, I guess.
No, that is not the same thing. The Kelvin Timeline exist due to Spock trying to prevent the destruction of Romulus from the nearby sun going supernova. The Temporal Cold War is different factions of the galaxy at war, messing with history.
The Temporal Cold War is from ENT.
That’s only if you accept that it is a time travel split and not another alternate universe where the first captain of the Enterprise was Archer instead of April.
Archer was not the captain of the NCC-1701. They commanded the NX-01, a completely different ship.
Fact: absolutely none of this would have happened if Kamala had won.
But uh but shes a woman. A brown woman. The horror,!
fun fact: i think it has nothing to do with it. it’s just that trump is a reality tv star and tv stars and entertainers tend to get elected in democracies (see england, italy, USA) because they know how to present themselves to the people in an “entertaining” way and also because harris refused to focus on the real buying power of people.
But she was going to kill Palestinians with her bare hands!
Shame she decided to support wildly unpopular policy and messaging instead of winning.
Shame millions of leftists had advanced warning of Project 2025, chose to ignore it and boycott the only viable other candidate anyway, and now are living with the concenquences of that inaction.
But they’re still only blaming Kamala and the Dem party, rather than taking a moment for self reflection as to how they willingly surrendered the country to fascism and damned marginalized groups to hell on Earth.
Kamala was a shitty candidate, but the left who boycotted the vote owns their own inaction. It’s not Kamala’s fault everyone had a year advance warning on Project 2025 and chose to do nothing anyway.
A friend of mine was sincerely advancing the idea that it’s better that trump wins, because less-bad candidates like Harris just let people coast by without doing much as the world gets worse. He thinks something like Trump will be really bad, and people will demand more radical change. I think you can call that acellerationism. Pretty easy position to hold as a wealthy professional who owns property, I guess.
Personally, I’d rather people organize and try to make the world better without the worst people in the world having most of the power. Seems easier that way to me.
I find this to be the most common occurrence of accelerationists.
The most willing to send millions to their graves to achieve what they believe is socialism, while they themselves will never pick up a rifle and fight for it.
They’re identical to every fat cat chicken-hawk piece of shit that sends young Americans to die in wars for the profit of political donors.
Nothing we could have done would have made genocide, the MoSt lEtHaL miLiTary electable. The only thing we could have done was riot to get a candidate and policies capable of winning.
You’re missing the point entirely.
Everyone agrees Kamala was shit. That’s not the point.
The point is millions of leftists, the people who are supposed to be advocates for marginalized peoples, absolutely refused to be advocates for said marginalized peoples when the easiest possible way to do it was to show up and vote for Kamala.
Was Kamala shit? Yes.
Would all these marginalized people be sent to concentration camps whole the government abandons the rule of law entirely and ends democracy under Kamala?
Obviously no.
Yet so many millions of leftists, especially those in swing states, decided to surrender these marginalized people to the fourth Reich instead.
The only lesson here is not to get to the point where the only alternative to fascism are libs who would prefer fascism to socialism. We lost when we allowed the dems to run on unelectable policy.
My dude, that decision was made almost 250 years ago.
We were getting to that point by primary neo-libs out of office and putting in more and more progressives. Progressives willing to end the Electoral College.
That is entirely up in flames now. US democracy is gone. Its not “at risk”, its already fucking dead. Straight up gone and never to come back.
Boycotting Kamala didn’t make us rise above the 2 party system, it placed us firmly in a permenant 1 party system under fascism.
Nothing we could have done would have changed the outcome then. You can’t make sending the cops to kick the shit out of the activated college students who make up your ground game popular.
Maybe she shouldn’t have committed genocide in Gaza if having a chance of getting elected was important to her
With the left, it’s never about being good enough or better than the right, it’s always about being perfect enough.
Hey dipshit,
Trump supported the genocide in Gaza too.
The difference is Kamala wouldn’t be committing a genocide against minorities in the US too, while sending the military and her own Gestapo to US cities to crush dissent.
Trump IS doing that, we knew over a year in advance to the election that he would do that, yet y’all refused to support the one thing that would’ve prevented that, which was Kamala, like her or not.
Hope your hollow virtue signal of sticking it to the Dems is worth the pro-genocide option of letting Trump win and commit even more genocide, including inside the US.
These people dont actually care about Gaza. They just hate America. Makes a lot more sense when you realize that.
I hated that she sounded like a politician dodging questions with nonsense answers. She should have been direct and stopped worrying about being a different direction than Biden.
But yes with all those flaws she would have been better than Trump by miles.
Yeah. But we would be listening to that laugh. I mean, did you even hear it?
I don’t think people are understanding your obvious sarcasm.
Yeah. That’s not surprising. The only thing worse than my sarcasm is a tan suit.
Clearly you’ve never put mustard on a hot dog
DIJON! Unacceptable!! Insert Lemongrab screech
Removed by mod
Just a reminder that no one steals food in America. If you thought you saw someone shoplifting food, no you didn’t! That never happened, you imagined it, turn around and walk away, nothing to report here.
it’s AI
Everyone on a jury should argue this. “I can’t trust the bodycam footage. Could be Sora. I have reasonable doubt.”
deleted by creator
Not American, but I totally didn’t see someone shoplifting a couple of weeks ago and I just carried on with my business, but on the way out I heard another customer grassing them out. What is the world coming to?
You know what you hardly ever see - billionaires telling on each other for their crimes for no reason. Solidarity, people!
It’s mostly going to be the elderly who suffer. People just forget about old people. They can’t get out and go stand in line at food pantries.
Sometimes they don’t have anyone checking on them very often.
Most don’t know how to get online and find services and such.
If you have an elderly neighbor or family member. Try to check with them and see if they need help.
If only it was the elderly people in the government that suffered.
Yeah kids and disabled people too. I just always think of the elderly cause they get forgotten about.
I wonder how many people on SNAP voted for the pedo-in-chief.
Like half of my friends are overt leftists who rely partially or fully on SNAP benefits, and they all voted against Trump. And I’m really worried about them.
Naw it will be alright.
Can any Americans explain to me, a Canadian, how it makes sense for essential services like food benefits to be suspended just because your government can’t get their shit together?
Like, genuine question here; how is this is a good system? How does your country benefit from things being designed this way? I’m not saying we don’t ever have political deadlock in Canada, we most certainly do, but even as someone who gets half my household income from the military, I’ve never had to worry about a missed paycheck just because politicians are being stupid. We have failsafes for that. Why don’t you?
Okay Mr. Canadian, I’ll try my best to explain it. The first thing you have to remember is that food stamps are a recent invention compared to the history of the country. Not that recent, but they came around just about when the boomers (for some of us, our parents. For others, grandparents) were about to be born.
So, when the framers got together to design the Constitution, food stamps did not exist (they weren’t even an idea of the time) and they were deathly afraid of a powerful government (a mix between the circumstances leading up to the Boston tea party and the slavery question/compromise between the North and South). So, under that framing, the founders were dead set on having the power of the purse being under as many people’s representation as possible. That is why the power of the purse and the allocation, of which the allocation of food stamps would fall under, is in Article 1 (Congressional powers) of our Constitution.
Yeah it can’t get its shit together but, at the same time, with the jackass we have now, putting the food stamps (or any allocation of the budgetary allotments) under the control of someone so petty is actually a godsend.
I don’t know what fail safes Canada has, so I can’t speak to that. However, does our Constitution need some amendments? YES As to what those are/would be, I cannot say because the list is too long. I think one of the reasons we are having such issue now is because our political system has been so captured since Regan that half the country feels like its living with a crazy lady in the attic, and they don’t want to feed the insanity any more than necessary. Is that a bad way to keep a country going? Probably
I mean, the main failsafes we have in Canada are pretty simple.
First, there is no debt calling. Once a budget is passed it remains in effect until a new budget is passed. Government departments are funded until specific actions are taken to make them not be funded.
Second, and this is the main one; budgets are considered confidence votes. That means if you ever fail to pass one, you’re done. Hand over the keys to country, you don’t get to drive it anymore. Either the opposition forms a government if they’re united enough to do so, or we go to the polls and elect a new one.
The first part means that during this process the basic mechanisms of state all continue to function. No one misses a paycheck. It can be annoying having to go to the polls again, maybe a few times in a row even if political deadlock is particularly bad, but ultimately its the voters who get to decide the outcome, not the politicians.
Anyway, thanks for the detailed answer.
Shutdowns have terribly little to do with the Constitution or Founding Fratboys. They’re mostly the result of the Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (and then repealing the “Gephardt rule” in 1995).
Having a debt ceiling is idiotic. Congress passes a budget to decide what to spend, so why would they need to pass another bill to fund the spending they already passed? Literally, the answer to that is “So they can shut down the government.”
This isn’t an issue of “the power of the purse” or checks and balances. It’s political grandstanding. Republicans are determined to break the country.
Shutdowns have terribly little to do with the Constitution . . … They’re mostly the result of the Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (and then repealing the “Gephardt rule” in 1995).
What ever restrictions that Congress puts on its budgets and developing budgets are well within its power of the purse under Article 1 Section 8, which expressly states:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
If Congress chooses to express that limitation within a statute, that is well within its rights. So, whether or not it is actually about political grandstanding is moot under the constitution because it is expressly within Congress’s power of the purse.
My point is that nothing in the Constitution requires government shutdowns. Your comment about “the power of the purse” was fairly off base/misleading because it’s all political grandstanding.
This country existed for ~225 years with no government shutdowns. Yes, it has always been within Congress’s rights to be dumbasses, I didn’t suggest otherwise. I just want to be clear that nobody is forcing them.
Shutdowns are not caused by the Constitution or any quirk of American procedure. Newt Gingrich passed a law so he could hold the government hostage, and Republicans have gotten worse ever since.
Is that a bad way to keep a country going? Probably
You know I said something like this to my therapist once. I ended up with a lot therapy in a short amount of time
Well, in the context of sovereign states, the equivalent of a therapist would probably be another nation invading the US and rooting out the Nazis. But, would that happen today? No. So, the crazy lady in the attic, while heavily a US problem, is also a global problem.
We don’t need to be invaded, we are actually capable of rooting out the Nazis ourselves. But around a third of white people are white supremacists and another third get more mad at the suggestion their friends are white supremacists than their friends being white supremacists, so…
So, many many years ago, there was a system where when a bill was passed, that meant it got funded. Simple and sweet. Actually it wasn’t that sweet, because Nixon was refusing to spend money that the law required the U.S. government to spend, similar to what Trump is doing today.
The current system is generally based on the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. There have been many small and large changes since, but the structure basically goes back to that.
Now that’s useful context that I didn’t know. Thank you.
hahhaha, wait, Canada, gov worker, missed cheques not a thing??? Have you heard of the phoenix payroll system??
I mean, the US is currently missing pay periods due to a conflict between their political leaders – but for us, our gov workers missed paycheques due to sheer incompetence. The people responsible for that shitshow weren’t even fired / held accountable for screwing it up. I don’t disagree that the US system has some issues, but I also don’t think we’re in that great a position to comment haha
But that’s not a built in feature of the political system, is it? Like, you do see the difference, right?
Fuck ups happen everywhere. Canada has plenty of them. But what’s happening in the US is apparently just how the system is designed. Hence the question; why design it that way?
As you point out, the Phoenix issue was incompetence, and the impact was uneven. Some didn’t have issues, others missed paycheques, yet others still got paid more than they expected.
But the US situation is a function of US Government that results in massive impact against the more vulnerable members of their society. I believe the comment remains valid.
I don’t know the official reason, if such a thing even exists. My heads screwed on just wrong enough to hazard a guess:
The empathy of inconveniencing and materially harming their constituents (or the fear of their electoral retribution) would be such a driving force that the government would seek to end any shutdown before it came to that.
Of course, any well-meaning intent withers in the face of monsters willing to kill, and let others die, for the facade of politics they don’t even truly subscribe to.
any well-meaning intent withers in the face of monsters willing to kill, and let others die,
for the facade of politicsbecause their donors told them toFTFY
It’s not a good system. It benefits none of the citizens. It’s being done to intentionally divide us further.
No. It doesn’t make sense and it is not a good system.
It benefits the oligarchs who control our government, certainly not the people. This is working as intended. Republicans have been trying to dismantle the government for 60 years and they’ve just about got it.
So fun fact, the shutdowns came from a legal opinion of the AG in the 80s, and they didn’t even adhere to that decision until a decade later, except for the first time. Reagan wanted the government shutdown to force Congress hands to cut more then they wanted to.
Then for the rest of the 80s and some 90s everybody ignored that AG decision until 1995 when Newt Gingrich (man that fuck was bad for the country) got into a fight with Clinton over spending and then all of the sudden the AG opinion mattered again.
In a sensible country, the government would continue to spend at the levels of the previous budget in the event of a delay in negotiating the renewed budget. It makes no sense. There are no benefits. Please do what you did in 1814 again we need it.
We don’t even need to go burn the white house down again, he tore it down himself.
Bbbuuuuttttttttt, what if he was inside it still? Please???
It wasn’t just the white house. Also congress is the one that makes the budget, and the laws that causes a delay in budget negotiations to stop payments.
Like, genuine question here; how is this is a good system?
Good question. I think to answer that you have to take into account competing ideals in hyper-capitalist American noggins about how the poor are thought of, how americans measure themselves, how we see social services as charity, and where charity “belongs” in our system of governance. Many Americans even on the left think charity should be the role on non government organizations, usually churches. We’re an overly religious country and we arent realistic about what churches do and how and why they do it. Since we hate the poor, we hate their support systems, and so we intend for them to be failure prone.
The TLDR (in my opinion) is that (on average) American policy makers hate their poor and think being impoverished is inevitably the result of a character flaw, criminal intent, or racial inadequacy and wealth is the result of higher character and virtue. Most Americans are startled to meet a rich black man, and doubly so to meet a rich black woman.
We also dislike the intelligencia, since at least the 70s. Unless they are in finance.
Very Christ-like.
The leopards! They hunger!
where does the expression “leoparts ate my face” even come from?
I believe it’s from a tweet that goes something like: “But the leopards weren’t supposed to eat MY face,” says person who voted for the Leopards Eating People’s Faces party.
And with only one week for people to prepare. Smooth.
if you really didn’t see this coming, it’s on you, honestly
So about those government contracts for immigration, you would think some of those states that raked in a lot of money, could perhaps use that ill-gotten money to at least benefit the residents of their states.
Funny that Florida got more than half a billion dollars from the government the day before the shutdown, but they just can’t find it within their hearts or their budget to use any of that money to feed families relying on food stamps in their state. Wonder where it’s going instead?
Wonder where it’s going instead?
Alligators with freakin’ laser beams attached to their heads for Alligator Alcatraz.
Stephen miller would approve
I think calling it “Alligator Auschwitz” would be more effective, except one of my old coworkers sincerely asked me “What’s Auschwitz?”
